Gun control logic. Probably a repost. If it is then my bad. Just haven't seen it yet. fat king. putting up with I am nut letting my country be ruled by a dictat

Gun control logic

Gun control logic. Probably a repost. If it is then my bad. Just haven't seen it yet. fat king. putting up with I am nut letting my country be ruled by a dictat

Probably a repost. If it is then my bad. Just haven't seen it yet

fat king. putting up with I am nut
letting my country be ruled by a dictator.
further, I' m gun start killing mania} want to ta davvi" ' ii'? guru?
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 77688
Favorited: 157
Submitted: 01/19/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to htownball submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#54 - Thebullsking (01/19/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#60 to #54 - pornoranger has deleted their comment [-]
#554 to #54 - gloverdude (01/20/2013) [-]
i just love that gif haha i would feel bad ass doing that to some random douche
User avatar #675 to #54 - rockamekishiko (01/20/2013) [-]
in america the guy with the gun would have probably shot the other car just because.
User avatar #461 - thesnarfalarker (01/20/2013) [-]
I wish people still fought wars with swords and bows and arrows. Because that **** was badass
User avatar #527 to #461 - eight (01/20/2013) [-]
I remember reading that the mortality rates from those days during war are much higher than they are with guns today. Interesting if true.
#544 to #527 - frijoles (01/20/2013) [-]
because of disease. up until like WWII or some **** disease accounted for more deaths during war time than battlefield fatalities.
User avatar #567 to #527 - cameronrox (01/20/2013) [-]
im assuming because maiming is better than killing straight up, if you maim a man his friend has to stop to help him. you kill him and his friend is out for blood.
User avatar #539 to #527 - thatnerdyguy (01/20/2013) [-]
Medical technology may play some role in that.
User avatar #541 to #539 - eight (01/20/2013) [-]
Perhaps. I can't remember much of what I read. But I am also sure that in term of contact area, swords are likely more deadly, easier to slice arteries or open up a large wound.
User avatar #545 to #541 - thatnerdyguy (01/20/2013) [-]
That's a good point too, more likely to bleed out before the fight's even close to over.
And then even if you survive that, infections must have been a bitch to deal with.
User avatar #551 to #545 - eight (01/20/2013) [-]
You know, watching sword fighting themed movies always makes me want to live in those times and experience it myself...but really thinking about it makes me terribly glad we have evolved from that. That being said, I still believe swordcraft is a much more elegant and sophisticated style of fighting. The sword provides defense and offense equally and relies upon the skill of the user.
User avatar #557 to #551 - thatnerdyguy (01/20/2013) [-]
I agree, that's why I do martial arts, though I haven't done much with swords specifically.
I really should get my friends who are in the SCA to teach me how to fight with a sword some time.
I do know a little bit of Japanese sword arts, and I'm even taking a class for it this semester, but I know very little of that and nothing of any other kinds.
User avatar #538 to #461 - thatnerdyguy (01/20/2013) [-]
If I ever go to war with you, I promise not to pansy it up with guns.
User avatar #312 - falconet (01/20/2013) [-]
"If it goes one inch further, I'm gonna start killing people."
Sounds like my GF when i attempt anal
#82 - Cleavland Steamer (01/19/2013) [-]

I'm American.... no need to get all Red, White and Blue in the face...
User avatar #103 to #82 - taintedangel (01/20/2013) [-]
That pic is unfortuneately pretty accurate. :/
#127 to #82 - simplelife (01/20/2013) [-]
Inaccurate, George Washington rode a T-Rex. Get your history right!
User avatar #34 - phunkyzilla (01/19/2013) [-]
#759 to #34 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
Dude I'm not gonna enter this issue but think about this - the only solid argument for owning a firearm is as protection (like a condom). The thing people are protecting themselves against? On the main, guns. Guns are supplying dangerous people a means to kill easily. But on the other hand, shooting **** is funny.
User avatar #115 to #34 - awesomenessdefined (01/20/2013) [-]
They are. That's why you go to jail for doing them.
#686 to #115 - anonyrnoose has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #688 to #686 - awesomenessdefined (01/20/2013) [-]
As in 'They are banned'
#102 to #34 - gagakaraya **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #36 to #34 - herpaderpnugget (01/19/2013) [-]
Well in that case all of our politicians would more than likely be in jail
User avatar #37 to #36 - Marker ONLINE (01/19/2013) [-]
Good, less politics, then.
#732 - romdadon (01/20/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#68 - ThatFatMummy ONLINE (01/19/2013) [-]
>Guns get banned
>Lawful people need a new way to defend themselves
>They begin learning the ways of the sword
>See people everywhere wielding medieval weaponry (scythes/swords/kamas/staves/etc)
>Instead of shootouts, you have big wars of two factions having giant battles with medieval weaponry in a modern environment.
>Get shot with an arrow
>Turn into a noodle
>The power of christ compels my semen out of my noodle nostrils
>The guns start shooting jelly beans
>Everything tastes so fruity
>The skies turn red as more and more people turn into spaghetti
>I lead the armies of noodle people into hell
>Use training from swordfighting due to banning of guns to kill the dark lord Satan.
>Get bitches
>Drink Coffee
>Drink bitches
>Get coffee
>Wake up to news announcement of guns getting banned.
#239 to #68 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
#85 to #68 - nooblolol has deleted their comment [-]
#584 to #68 - pencilartist (01/20/2013) [-]
I started reading right in the middle of that, and had no idea what the **** was going on.
#260 to #68 - chickeniscrazy (01/20/2013) [-]
>Lawful people need a new way to defend themselves

I have never understood that argument, how chaotic and crime ridden is America? The way progun people talk about the necessity to bear arms for ones protection I picture a goddamn war zone run by a dictator. Good god crime can't be that bad can it?
User avatar #347 to #260 - ThatFatMummy ONLINE (01/20/2013) [-]
No, it's just that a lot of people live by the saying "It's better safe than sorry."
#401 to #347 - chickeniscrazy (01/20/2013) [-]
I guess it's best to have a M16 or P90 or barrat just in case...damn that's idiotic. Fair enough own a hand gun, but there is absolutely no reasons why someone would need a shotgun/assault rifle/sniper rifle.
User avatar #432 to #401 - ThatFatMummy ONLINE (01/20/2013) [-]
There is a reason, if someone busts into your house with an M16, P90, of .50 cal.
#438 to #432 - chickeniscrazy (01/20/2013) [-]
Well maybe if they were incredibly difficult to's ridiculous. There is no legitimate reason to own such a dangerous weapon
User avatar #440 to #438 - ThatFatMummy ONLINE (01/20/2013) [-]
In the event that such a thing DOES happen, I'll be glad to have my AR15.
#441 to #440 - chickeniscrazy (01/20/2013) [-]
Yea it won't in your life time. You have that gun just for the sake of having it. No need for it
User avatar #447 to #441 - ThatFatMummy ONLINE (01/20/2013) [-]
Why WON'T it happen in my lifetime?
Man has landed on the moon, stars are born and die every day, we constantly find things infinitely smaller than before, we're starting to believe that there are numbers of universes, this may be our 1,000,000 time alive due to our belief of a universal cycle, animals can change colors, life exists...
but a criminal owning a dangerous gun is SOOOOO impossible?
User avatar #482 to #260 - undeadwill (01/20/2013) [-]
It is. We simply create a system that breeds insane people, criminals, and Sometimes insane criminals with legislation.
Our drug laws and effort to fight them made a harmless group of individuals into a well armed war and drug lords.
Then we have a system that has no incentive to help out the mentally insane or mentally or emotionally damaged.

Also here's a fun fact:
One of the lowest crime rate despite lack of social programs: Texas
One of the highest crime rates despite powerful police and social programs: New York
User avatar #463 to #260 - klaes (01/20/2013) [-]
Crime is that bad in the United States, but what a lot of people forget is that the second amendment is less a about protecting yourself against robbers or a thief, and was put in place to allow the people to protect themselves from an oppressive government. Also, your argument about P90s and M16 is absurd and unfounded, as fully automatic weapons have been banned for years.

It sounds strange, I know, I'm British; however, Americans don't trust their government. Now, here's the question, can you blame them? The Patriot Act, the NPAA? Hell, even going back as far as Prohibition, americans have plenty of reason not to trust their politicians to do the right thing. If I was an american, I'd be damn glad to have a gun if SOPA or PIPA passed, which would supress the greatest form of communication humans have ever had.

For info on the gun stuff, so you can stop spewing a load of ******** :
#356 to #68 - CapnInterwebz (01/20/2013) [-]
what the 			****		 are you even saying
what the **** are you even saying
#398 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#236 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
there are crazy idiots on both sides.. this shows nothing
#382 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]

ok, here's how it really is
guns are nothing more than a tool in which it launches a piece of metal at an incredibly high speed into someone so they no longer live. simple as that, nothing more to it.

now.... I'd like to see someone try to explain why I am wrong.

no they aren't a way of life (more like a way out of life)
#452 - huntergriff ONLINE (01/20/2013) [-]
User avatar #29 - happygrowman (01/19/2013) [-]
american logic:

>guns dont kill people
>people kill people
>give people a killing tool
#436 to #29 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
#535 to #29 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
Or, a tool for self defense. Seeing as criminals are going to get their hands on the guns whether they are legal or not. Takes a special kind of stupid to think that criminals are going to give their guns up along with all of the law abiding citizens.
User avatar #591 to #535 - happygrowman (01/20/2013) [-]
self defense alone does not justify owning a weapon which sole purpose is for murder.
User avatar #627 to #29 - monkeyfuckingpro (01/20/2013) [-]
People can kill people just as easily with other **** , and this isn;t our logic, this is 1780's american logic.
User avatar #821 to #29 - skullzero (01/20/2013) [-]
Real Logic:

>No guns
>No people getting shot
#77 to #29 - uphill (01/19/2013) [-]
">give people a killing tool"

Do you really think we just let people walk into gun stores and buy guns without permits and background checks? We allow people to get guns because it's a Constitutional right in the US. I think the issue with some pro gun people with the topic is that once one type of gun is banned, it can be seen as a foothold for getting more guns banned until law abiding citizens are disarmed.
User avatar #83 to #77 - wishingwell (01/19/2013) [-]
oh, so the guy who shot 3-4 people this week, who bought it hours before, was screened and checked? - i think not
#86 to #83 - uphill (01/19/2013) [-]
I'm not sure which incident you're stating. If he bought it from a source that didn't have any sort of screening or background check, why would that seller be affected by a ban on guns?
User avatar #89 to #86 - wishingwell (01/19/2013) [-]
sorry, kinda drunk, forgot to mention that he was screened and checked, but not thouroughly enough (obviously)
#108 to #89 - uphill (01/20/2013) [-]
Oh, I see. I know our current laws and regulations aren't perfect, and I'm fine with strengthening and modifying background checks and screenings where necessary, but I personally think that once one type of gun is banned, it may be the beginning of a gradual process of other types being banned until guns are taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
User avatar #119 to #108 - wishingwell (01/20/2013) [-]
yeah i agree that it's a possibility, but there's a slim chance that hunting rifles and pistols will be banned in the process, since the right to arms is protected by the constitution - but again this is just what I think.
#528 to #29 - tehbluefish (01/20/2013) [-]
Hey guys how about we make guns illegal, so bad guys don't have guns
Just like how bad guys don't have drugs because we made drugs illegal.
User avatar #587 to #528 - happygrowman (01/20/2013) [-]
thats like saying murder should be legal since people will do it anyway. in that case, why do we need a government and laws?

youre right, humans can live happily with chaotic anarchy. **** everything, do what you want, right?
User avatar #35 to #29 - mrwayne (01/19/2013) [-]
Because people will always have guns. I'm not going to stand by while someone breaks in my house and I hide in a corner.
I have my .357 locked up, but easy to get to. Why? After living in so many burned down places, where you can walk outside to have a cigarette and see your neighbor get robbed, you'll want to protect yourself too.

TL;DR? Lowlifes kill people for nothing. People protect themselves.
User avatar #43 to #35 - thegorn (01/19/2013) [-]
Right, I'm from Norway, and I agree that it's fine to own a revolver if you keep it in your home. But why would anyone need an assault rifle to protect themselves from burglars? I mean, that's all Obama wants to ban, right?
User avatar #45 to #43 - darknesincontrol (01/19/2013) [-]
Im from Denmark, and most of us dont own a gun. The worst thing that could happen to us is getting stabbed...
User avatar #69 to #45 - ningyoaijin (01/19/2013) [-]
But if you had a gun, you wouldn't be stabbed, and you'd be damned sure the burglar would put that **** back.
#257 to #69 - herashak (01/20/2013) [-]
but if you had a gun chances are he has a gun.
User avatar #303 to #257 - nogphille (01/20/2013) [-]
chances are he has a gun whether or not you have one.. people committing a crime may already have committed a crime.. like owning an illegal firearm..
#317 to #303 - herashak (01/20/2013) [-]
There are 12 guns per 100 people. I don't think the chances of the person robbing you having a gun is that high, and the chances of you dying is waaaaaay lower.
User avatar #323 to #317 - nogphille (01/20/2013) [-]
statistics? without reference? always nice.. does that include illegal firearms? does that include a list of how many of those 100 are felons and how many of those 12 represent felons?
i actually do think that the person committing burglary might be armed; he'd be stupid not to.. and i think felons aren't stupid, they were merely brought up with low chances to amount to anything differently and can see a quick buck when presented the opportunity.
#80 to #69 - wishingwell has deleted their comment [-]
#110 to #69 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
if i had a gun the burglar would shoot first
User avatar #99 to #43 - MatthewsGauss (01/20/2013) [-]
people want assault rifles because they look awesome, why do people buy swords? There isnt going to be a feudal knight barging into your house looking for a duel, people just by them because they look kick anus
User avatar #148 to #35 - wishingwell (01/20/2013) [-]
yeah, but isn't that great childhood stick enough? - you know, the one you found as a child with the perfect grib and balance? the one we hid under our beds, just in case something happened? the one our mom hated infourisly? (- mine did, so she bought a couple of mahogany fighting sticks for me instead.)
In a country, with almost no guns, like Denmark, you wouldn't need a gun for self defence, you'd just need goold old trusted clubby the club, for the job.

I still have my trusty old clubby under my bed, just in case something happens. And clubby the club has endning it's fair share of violence, so far, and I feel a lot more safe within it's proximity, than I do with guns of any kind.
User avatar #41 to #29 - ivoryhammer (01/19/2013) [-]
That's not American logic, that's dumbass logic, don't mix all us Americans into that group, we're not all idiots.
#143 to #41 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
Yes. Yes you are. But every rule has its exeption.
#622 to #537 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
That was back in WW2. And seeing how america has it's imperial military bases in different countries all across the world including Japan (which is not even allowed to have a military anymore after WW2) I would think that the rules and outlook of this country have changed greatly. Basically, the homeland of america and it's citizens are not exactly something to fear anymore.
User avatar #635 to #622 - lecherouslad (01/20/2013) [-]
Then why take their guns? Why waste time and effort on people, you already perceive as weak?
User avatar #679 to #635 - rockamekishiko (01/20/2013) [-]
because they ARE fearful WITH guns
User avatar #203 - squadmissile (01/20/2013) [-]

In the blue corner, weighing into the argument with conspiracy theories so stupid that even the mentally handicapped think "now wait a second here". Voted in his school yearbook as" most likely to lose a battle of wits with a hand dryer". We have the champion of the pro gun movement, MR ALEX, THE MOUTHBREATHER, JONES.

In the Red corner, who recently lost a charisma contest to a type of deep sea algae, left his home country because he was so hated by his fellow countrymen that on Guy Fawkes night had to be renamed because so many effigies of him were burnt. Also he is awaiting trial for his role in phone hacking scandal were his employees hacked the phone of murdered children, as well as forcing the devil to create another level of hell just for him and his ego, we have PIERS, THE CUNTFACE, MORGAN.

#227 to #203 - iluvharrypotter (01/20/2013) [-]
They already got Alex though.

Pic related, FEMA Camp federal ATF employees capture and "relocate" Alex Jones after speaking of treason against the Imperial People's Democrat Republic United Federalization of States Kingdom, after the Piers Morgan debate.
User avatar #208 to #203 - Onemanretardpack (01/20/2013) [-]
Lets not forget how his "journalism" got British soldiers killed by broadcasting the location of their base when he was trying to portray those same soldiers as evil for interrogating prisoners that had info on high profile targets in the area
#96 - warlockrichard (01/20/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#39 - anon (01/19/2013) [-]
This is a bad representation of the pro gun side...Wow. Not all of us are this stupid or contradicting. That's just what gets on the media networks.
User avatar #426 to #39 - allahakbar (01/20/2013) [-]
It only takes 1 person with a so called "assault rifle," or what ever you want to call it, to go on a rampage and kill 20+ people. The fact that this guy is on your side is what makes you lose. If you win, he wins and that cannot happen.
User avatar #454 to #426 - klaes (01/20/2013) [-]
Okay, here's why you're wrong. Fully automatic rifles have been banned for years. Read up, before you start calling stuff out:

The site definitely has a political leaning, but it references anti-gun groups and their exact quotes, so it's worth a read. This should educate you a bit more on the so called "assault weapons" that have been used recently.
User avatar #475 to #454 - allahakbar (01/20/2013) [-]
I put assault rifle in quotations because I know that people like you were going to jump my **** . I do not know exactly what you or any gun enthusiast would call the type of gun used in the recent Sandy Hook or in the Aurora theater shooting, nor do I care. Since I do not know the term, I put assault rifle in quotes to inform others that I am referring to the guns that have been the subject of recent gun law discussions. No matter what, the definition of an "assault rifle" is irrelevant to my point. I also never said "fully automatic rifles" anywhere in my comment because I know damn well that a semi-auto rifle can still do catastrophic damage to a group of people. Before you attempt to tell someone to "read up" on an issue, I suggest you read their comment until you actually understand the main point of their argument.
User avatar #493 to #475 - klaes (01/20/2013) [-]
And additionally, the DEFINITION of an Assault Weapon/Assault Rifle should be VERY relevant to your point, as it's what is being discussed at this moment. A ban will happen for sure, it just depends on what guns will be removed from the market.
User avatar #489 to #475 - klaes (01/20/2013) [-]
Semi-automatics are dangerous, huh?
So shall we ban pistols too? Perhaps ranch rifles as well, as they are also semi-automatic.

I seriously advise you to read over that link I sent you. The term that is being thrown around in the media is "Assault Weapons", as "Assault Rifles" have already been banned. Now, what is an assault weapon, is it a "gun-nut" term? Nope. It's a political term that was used years ago in a ban on some weapons which "looked like" true machine guns.

For your information, the most lethal weapon used in the Aurora shootings was in fact the Remington 870, a PUMP-ACTION shotgun, not a assault riffle. To clarify, I'm not exactly pro-gun, I don't even own one. My point here is simply that pistols can be just as lethal, and if your argument is "they're too dangerous" you'd have to ban all other semi-auto pistols and 12 gauge shotguns in the process.

Due to the nature of US politics, this will not happen.

User avatar #652 to #489 - allahakbar (01/20/2013) [-]
Look you can call it what you want. You can continue to act like Mr. Big Shot and correct me on my usage of terminology, but that does not change the fact that something has to be done. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns like the one used in the Aurora shooting are killing machines that serve no other practical purpose than to kill. One could argue that they could be used for home defense, but a handgun will work just as well if not better. Yes, pistols may be just as lethal, but pistols tend to have smaller magazines, are harder to control, and tend to not be as powerful thus making them less deadly in a public setting. No matter what, some guns need to be banned, whether they are assault rifle and/or 12 gauge shot guns it makes no difference. There is obviously a problem with guns in this country and something must be done.
User avatar #402 to #39 - schwerdaddy (01/20/2013) [-]
Somebody doesn't understand satirical comedy.
User avatar #47 to #39 - luidias (01/19/2013) [-]
but would you give guns to those crazy, irresposible outliers that make it to the media?

It's not fair to let those kinds of people have guns., while it's also not fair to keep them from those that are responsible and will use their guns safely. but for that, there needs to be some kind of gun control. the outliers need to be identified so that we can only allow the responsible people to buy weapons.
#305 - whatugawkinat (01/20/2013) [-]
Why don't we just ban CRIME?
#351 to #305 - drizztrocks (01/20/2013) [-]
Because Aliens man.
#487 to #351 - undeadwill (01/20/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I don't know why someone red thumbed you that was ******* funny
#836 - whatupnachoface (01/20/2013) [-]
if harry potter was a true american everything would have been so simple..
if harry potter was a true american everything would have been so simple..
#574 - yourmomsfuckbuddy (01/20/2013) [-]
Why won't the government just govern us instead of control us?
User avatar #603 to #574 - amateriandarknut (01/20/2013) [-]
Because that would mean blaming the person for the crime, and we can't have that, now can we?
#770 - mrkillernine (01/20/2013) [-]
What about my Cat gun?
What about my Cat gun?
#774 to #770 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
Getting your pussy to do the work for you.
User avatar #811 to #770 - kureizikitsune (01/20/2013) [-]
A catling gun; how nice.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)